The GH2 has the multi-aspect sensor (which I really like), built-in flash, and access to all the great m43 lenses (especially from Olympus). It's downsides are:
- Older sensor tech - high ISO a bit worse than current m43 sensors
- Not "weather proof"
- No IBIS for non OIS glass
- Not as compact

I want to use this as an alternative to my Nikon FX system when size and weight are a factor - like vacations, hiking, climbing, skiing, backpacking, etc. I have an LX-7 for other times when compactness is key and IQ not paramount.

I was thinking of getting the 8mm fish, 7-14/4, 12-35/2.8, 75/1.8 Oly as a decent start on a light weight, but high IQ kit.

For still imaging I think the newer generation MFT bodies with the Sony sensor (O-MD, E-PM2) make the GH2 a tough sell. For video I think the GH2 still reigns supreme, esp. since early GH3 reports indicate a video implementation a few steps behind the GH2.

The GH2 is a very good camera. It's about as good as the OM-D in noise up to about ISO 3200, then the OM-D starts pulling away a bit (especially in color accuracy). However, it's not at the same level as the OM-D or GH3, or NEX bodies in dynamic range. It's a very noticeable difference.

Is the EVF important ? Something like the EPL5 would give you the latest sensor performance and the smaller body size, plus IBIS (thought not as good as OM-D, yet better than no IBIS at all on the GH2)

Really are always going to be pro's and con's to all the choices though as for example, as near perfect as the OM-D may be, the lack of built in flash really is a pain for for fill for casual shooting, at least in my ownership with it.

I had several m4/3 and NEX cameras and ended up selling them all for the little Sony RX100 believe it or not.

It was to me the best overall compromise of easily portable size, built in flash, good quality lens and sensor combo that can produce results on par with m4/3 cameras at all but the highest ISO range.

Make no mistake, a OM-D or NEX6 etc, paired with a good lens will best the RX100, but for semi-casual shooting, I just couldn't enjoy carrying around the too big for my pocket OM-D and having to add on the flash etc. Didn't always want a bag to carry extra glass (though there are some sweet m4/3 lenses) and really the RX100 lens is as good as the 14-42 if not even better.

Just comes down to what you plan to do with the camera and how much gear you want to carry, money you want to invest into an additional system etc

If you want a tiny cam, also take a look at the GX1, which is also being discounted heavily right now. Similar image quality to the GH2, though with a little better high ISO performance, very small, pop-up flash, great handling and outstanding autofocus (I often wish I could put my GX1's AF into my OM-D).

John, looks like you intend to spend some money on lenses. In that case, don't cheap out on the body. I have GH2 and OMD. I prefer the handling and ease of use of GH2 over the OMD which frustrates the hell out of me sometimes but has better image quality and IBIS. Therefore, I am hopeful that the GH3 answers my prayers and is easy to handle with image quality equal to the OMD but alas no IBIS.. The slightly larger size of the GH3 does not bother me, in fact I welcome it as it will be easier to hold.

Yes, an EVF is an absolute must for me. I need to get one for my LX-7. In my advancing 40-something years I'm getter more and more far sighted and trying to frame while looking at an LCD while at arms length is not very nice.

So all the non-EVF options are out.

I like to shoot a lot of outdoors/landscape-type shots and the multi-aspect sensor of the GH2 (like the LX-7 which is almost always in 16:9 mode) really appeals to me.

I have the OM-D and kept my GH-2. I love the multi-format sensor of the GH2 - I almost always use the 16:9 or 4:3 ratios. The OM-D has significantly better dynamic range and color and the noise/grain has a much better quality than that of the GH-2.

If I had to choose one, it would be the OM-D, but I'm glad I have the multi-aspect sensor in the GH-2.

I don't know if it's the right time, but I did yesterday. I love the multi aspect sensor as well as the handling (I already have a GH1), although the build quality isn't much to write home about. Later, I'll probably buy the GH3 as well, and maybe even the OM-D. m4/3 is evolving into becoming my main photographic system, and since the bodies are cheap, small and lightweight, having several increases my flexibility. I mostly only use my Nikons when I need something that can double as a hammer or a weapon.

Jman13 wrote:
The GH2 is a very good camera. It's about as good as the OM-D in noise up to about ISO 3200, then the OM-D starts pulling away a bit (especially in color accuracy). However, it's not at the same level as the OM-D or GH3, or NEX bodies in dynamic range. It's a very noticeable difference.

This!
I really like my GH2, and it goes places with me that I wouldn't dream of bringing my 1DsMkIII. Manual focus with my contax lenses is a dream. But alas, I bought it as a backup/b-roll camera for video. I was surprised by its ability in the stills world, but the limited dynamic range is disappointing. I'm intrigued by the GH3 and have one on pre order for this reason.

I think in addition to the lens, one other criteria to consider is whether you need a camera like GH2?

For example, if I'm into landscape photography, then I may only need simple AF. I have no need to get the most update-to-date/fastest AF. I also don't care about frame rate. So I'll probably choose a newer/cheaper, maybe a little lower end camera, but with better sensor. A lower end camera usually is lighter as well.

I think GH2 is showing its age now and unless you are into video, it may not worth its high price.